The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Driving Past Police Officer and Yelling "Fuck the Police" "While Pointing as if [One] Had a Gun" Is Constitutionally Protected
From State v. Buford-Johnson, filed today by the Washington Court of Appeals (Judge Lori Smith, joined by Judge Bill Bowman and Acting Chief Judge Beth Andrus):
Artemas Buford Johnson was arrested after he drove past a Seattle Police Department officer and yelled "fuck the police" while pointing as if he had a gun….
We use an objective test to identify whether speech is a true threat: "'[a] true threat is a statement made in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted … as a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm.'" "A true threat is a serious threat, not one said in jest, idle talk, or political argument."
"[T]he nature of a threat depends on all the facts and circumstances, and it is not proper to limit the inquiry to a literal translation of the words spoken." "[I]t is not just the words and phrasing of the alleged threat that matter, but also the larger context in which the words were uttered, including the identity of the speaker, the composition of the audience, the medium used to communicate the alleged threat, and the greater environment in which the alleged threat was made." …
Here, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that Johnson made a true threat…. Johnson's statement did not itself express any intention to cause harm, but instead was a generalized and political statement of animosity. We have noted that "criticism, commentary, and even political hyperbole towards and about public servants" is political speech that "is at the core of First Amendment protection 'no matter how vehement, caustic[,] and sometimes unpleasantly sharp." …
However, Johnson also pointed at Officer Zerr as if he had a firearm, expressive conduct that does imply violence. The City correctly notes that mimicking the firing of a gun has been considered threatening in other contexts and jurisdictions. We must therefore examine "all the facts and circumstances" to determine whether Johnson's conduct constituted a threat in this case.
The circumstances here do not convince us that Johnson's speech and conduct together constituted a true threat. Johnson did not stop or approach Officer Zerr, but instead continued driving north throughout the interaction. Furthermore, Johnson kept his arm hanging out of the window of the car as he continued to drive, and then immediately stopped at a red light. These facts are more suggestive of a casual encounter or idle talk than a serious threat. {We … note that there is no clarification as to whether Johnson actually mimed shooting a gun or merely pointed his hand in a manner that was evocative of a gun, which would give more information about the extent to which Johnson's conduct clearly expressed violence.} …
{The record establishes that Officer Zerr was out at 9:45 PM by himself, a car without headlights drove by, the driver yelled at him, and Officer Zerr thought he had seen an object that might be a firearm. Officer Zerr then "quickly moved into the shadows and behind a telephone pole, fearing the pointed object might be a firearm." Considering these circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Johnson's conduct placed Officer Zerr in reasonable fear of bodily harm.}
However, the fact that Officer Zerr was afraid is not determinative: the true threat inquiry asks whether there is sufficient evidence that a person in Johnson's position would "'foresee that [his] statement would be interpreted … as a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm.'" Here, Officer Zerr was afraid because he thought he might have seen a firearm, but Johnson did not have a firearm and there is no suggestion that he should have anticipated that Officer Zerr would think he had one. Therefore, the fact that Officer Zerr was afraid does not indicate that Johnson's conduct rose to the level of a true threat.
Thanks to Bret Uhrich for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm not the biggest fan of the police and they should get no special treatment here. And I agree this doesn't rise to the level of threat. However, I do not think the Founders intended for the right to free speech to protect the yelling of obscenities in public places.
Queenie. Go to Commie China where you belong and would feel more comfortable. And take the entire scumbag lawyer toxic occupation with you. We are sick of you anti-freedom degenerates.
The police is, of course, the agent of the prosecutor. They allow millions of common law crimes, and 100 million internet crimes. There are 100000 unsolved missing persons reports. Those are likely buried murder victims. You stink, you stinking lawyers. The number one purpose of government is safety, and you are in utter failure. So, naturally, we have the arrest and the federal case of a guy who was rude to them. Deport Queenie and that stinking prosecutor to Red China.
Remember, this Autistic Authoritarian wants summary executions of those who politically disagree with him. And he's telling me to go to China. Dude's there already, just as the village idiot.
Remember, Behar is a Trump supporter.
I want summary executions of the lawyer hierarchy, after an hour's fair trial. The sole evidence of their insurrection would be their legal utterances.
"this Autistic Authoritarian..."
Interesting. Is it common for folks on the left now to use Autistic as a slur, or is it just a peculiarity of some of the leftist commenters on this blog?
" Is it common for folks on the left now to use Autistic as a slur. . ."
No.
“ Is it common for folks on the left now to use Autistic as a slur, …”
Yes, as we on the extreme right have recognized the autist in each of us. Autist is a common laudatory epithet for us.
I'm pretty sure that's a reddit/QAnon thing.
Had we been at work, Queenie would have been fired on the spot for the remarks it is making about me. I do have autism, and its mean spirited, hurtful remarks are very painful to me.
I feel threatened, bullied, and intimidated by Queenie. It is triggering me.
The Founders are worm food who contemplated interactions between vastly fewer people living very different lives. I'm interested in what accommodates living humans best.
Of course, "textualists" ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like as much as any other interpretive tradition, but everyone already knows that.
The real story here is that judges seem to finally be accepting that the little people do in fact have free speech rights, even when they piss off the gang flying local the colors.
Like I said, no tears for the cop here. But I don't think the 1st requires a public square with folks shouting obscenities.
Fuck the draft.
Though I should note for the record that the word "fuck" in this context is vulgarity, not obscenity.
Well said, noting the differences among the ‘swearings’, profanity, obscenity and vulgarity.
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of it being said in a public place, but do you think it's likely that the speech fits within the obscenity exception as defined by Miller v. California? Very unlikely.
If what you are going at is that indecent or profane speech ought be unprotected in a public place, do you believe that Reno v. ACLU was wrongly decided?
"However, I do not think the Founders intended for the right to free speech to protect the yelling of obscenities in public places."
I disagree. I don't think that the "Founding Fathers" were yelling compliments in their protests against King George. I believe that was the EXACT type of speech they were referring to.
Reminiscent of this Chris Rock sketch:
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
That video should be played every year at Assembly in all the high schools in the hoods.
In the old days Artemas Buford (cut him some slack, he's named "Artemus Buford") would have gotten the shit beaten out of him and have been more respectful in the future.
And they didn't even spell his name Artemis correctly. SMH
You're correct about what would have happened in the old days, but the police were wrong to do it then and Buford has a right to say it now. I don't have much sympathy for Buford; the police have a really tough job and if I was a cop I'd be really pissed off at him. But the First Amendment gives the right for people to say and do really stupid things. Most First Amendment cases arise from people saying stupid things; otherwise, nobody would take offense.
Professional boxer Danny Kelly, Jr., 30, was shot to death as he drove his family on Christmas Eve on a Maryland road in what police are investigating as a possible road rage incident.
Kelly was en route to a holiday dinner with his girlfriend and his three children, traveling north in Prince George’s County, when someone rolled up next to their car, opened fire and drove away, police said.
no truth that Mr. Kelly yelled a profanity while pointing as if he had a gun.
The split subjectivity standards in American law can lead to weird outcomes. If the officer had a reasonable fear that someone was pointing a gun at him, he might have been able to shoot "back" to save his life, and not be guilty of a crime, even though the pointing was constitutionally protected.
Oh, I think that's absolutely correct. There is no doubt that the officer felt in fear for his life here. If, for example, the red light had been right where this happened (ie, so the vehicle was remaining right next to the cop), and the man continued to point his hand at the cop, then I'd have ZERO sympathy for the guy if the cop had drawn his weapon and killed him. (The court's opinion mentioned that the car was driving without headlights, so it must have been relatively dark...I'm assuming that the court misspoke, and meant to write that the car was driving without headlights *on* and not that the car was missing the actual headlights.)
[Given the darkness; I find it strange that the court suggested that it might be relevant if a person merely pointed his hand like it was a gun vs aiming it and miming the firing of a gun...as though any cop in this darkened environment could have possibly noted something as subtle as this. A minor part of the written opinion, but it stood out to me.]
I find it strange that the court suggested that it might be relevant if a person merely pointed his hand like it was a gun vs aiming it and miming the firing of a gun...as though any cop in this darkened environment could have possibly noted something as subtle as this.
That would also be an odd distinction to make given that you're (whether law enforcement or not) not generally required to wait until you're actually fired upon in order to consider having a firearm (real or perceived) pointed at you a threat of imminent deadly force.
Pedantry point.
Santa: After X shooting, I don't think a person should be allowed to buy a handgun with a magazine capacity of over 15. A person with a standard revolver could only do so much damage comparatively.
Wuzzie: Ahah! That handgun had a magazine of only 15!!!! Checkmate, libtard!
You must have been a joy at those things we used to call cocktail parties. Driving "without headlights" is an exceptionally common expression, including in well over a thousand prior legal opinions.
Brian, Interesting to read. You say it's common, and I'll take you at your word.
I'll point out that I have sat as a (volunteer) judge in Traffic Courts in the cities of LA, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Culver City...for more than 20 years. And I have never seen that term in any police report (nor in any evidence the city or the defendant presented to me). So, maybe it's a local or regional usage euphemism???
As I wrote earlier; I think the context here made it pretty clear that what was intended was "driving with headlights off." But (again, as a volunteer judge) I saw plenty of tickets given for people driving cars that had NO headlights, or NO taillights. And when I was younger and teaching in western Mass, it was quite common in my small town for the local teens to vandalize headlights and tailights with a baseball bat, if your car was from out of state.
(but your larger point--watch out for Santamonica if you're at a cocktail party--is a fair one. I will be one of those pedantic people, trying to set the record straight...from continuity errors in "Rocky Horror Picture Show" to how to correctly pronounce Van Gogh. And my pedantic approach has worked--I now am almost never invited to cocktail parties, which is to my great relief.) 🙂
Yet some are arguing that "Let's Go Brandon" is a terrorist threat, one notch below an insurrection.
No one should consider that statement a threat. It's simply the juvenile, vulgar pejorative icing on top of the modern Conservative cake
vulgar speech to some but at least they aren't burning down cities
The old Antifa trope. Try again.
"Fiery but mostly peaceful protests..."
And shame on the Democratic mayor of Portland for spreading the old Antifa trope.
Yes...because Fuck Trump was never said by an Liberal.
Prove that country-wide across the whole of the party including statesmen and legislators. I'll be waiting.
No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
A CNN analyst/former FBI agent/Yale prof equated saying "Let's go Brandon" to "Long live ISIS."
And a senior editor at the Atlantic said " I don't think ["Let's Go Brandon!" i]s fundamentally about incivility. It's about insurrection."
The fact that we are even discussing something as ridiculous as 'let's go brandon' is finally the point. I mean, how did we get here such that half the population has regressed so badly that they happily say such a thing?
You are sorely mistaken about which half of the country has regressed. Think about the origin of the phrase, and who demonstrated regression there.
What an odd thing to say. You are going to have to clue me in on who exactly are these stadiums-full of people that are chanting it. Antifa?
Well, let's see:
four years of "Resistance" ... "health emergency" lockdowns ... Antifa / BLM allowed to run wild, hurt people, burn things down ... a stolen election ... etc.
Gee, I wonder why people are getting restless?
Neither of those support your original thesis of 'a terrorist threat.'
Where do you draw the line between insurrection and terrorism?
For one, they are different words, not along a continuum.
For two, the link is broken.
But some Googling turned up: Ron Brownstein following up with the following: '“The whole ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ motif is the reflection of the view [that] two-thirds of the Republican base — driven by Trump’s false claims and the Big Lie that Biden is an illegitimate President,” he continued. “And, it reflects the findings in multiple polls by the American Enterprise Institute, Vanderbilt University, and others, that a majority of Republican voters now say the American way of life is disappearing so fast that … we may have to use force to save it.'
Which is...valid. People on this Conspiracy think that. And that is not calling anyone a terrorist.
The bigoted, superstitious, ignorant, backwater way of life in America is fading.
Clingers hardest hit. Including The Official (White, Male) Legal Blog Of Clingers.
"For two, the link is broken."
oops.
"Which is...valid."
Are you kidding? Perhaps a subset of people who dislike Biden enough to insult him like that believe the election is stolen, but there are plenty of people who want to tell Biden to fuck off that don't believe that.
This is the equivalent of claiming that everybody who said, fuck Trump thought the Russians hacked our voting machines and, like Hillary, thought that Trump was an illegitimate president.
But the idea that saying, "Let's go Brandon" is equivalent to calling for the violent overthrow of the government is batshit crazy.
Opinion polls say otherwise.
So do the GOP members of Congress.
So do people running in GOP primaries.
This is not nutpicking, it's the base of your party. Which you're fine with - you defend Jan 06 all the damn time, and you don't have to.
According to polls, two thirds of Democrats DO think that Trump only won because Russia hacked voting machines to change the voting totals. Sometimes this has polled as high as 75%.
Same Democrats think that W Bush lost the election in 2000, at between 66% and 75%, depending on the year.
Same Democrats think Bush and Diebold stole the 2004 elections, too, at rates of 40% to 50%.
If believing that an election was "stolen" is insurrection, then Democrats are way out in front there.
That was a 2018 poll, and includes 'somewhat agree' in it's total.
Disagreeing with a Supreme Court case is also not the same as disagreeing with vote totals.
As for 2004, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not really an opinion leader on the left anymore. On the right, though...
Your parallels are not really analogous, because you're comparing partisan sour grapes with this Trump-lead attack on our Replicant form of government.
======================
Trump and elected officials are saying wild stuff unlike anything in past years.
And States are moving election certification into explicitly partisan hands.
It's not terrorism, but it is really dangerous.
"Your parallels are not really analogous, because you're comparing partisan sour grapes with this Trump-lead attack on our Replicant form of government."
It's partisan sour grapes when we do it, but an insurrection when they do it.
Trump is purging the party and state legislatures are working to turn your side's sour grapes into something that controls the GOP.
And you seem to be defending that.
Trump is hardly doing anything except spouting off, unless you are convinced he has some secret back room cabal "assuming direct control" (somehow) of 30-something state legislatures (despite no elections). If politicians are moving to the positions he supports, is it because he has magic powers of control? Or is it because there is a popular base for those positions?
Same, are politicians like Bernie and the Progressive Caucus gaining members because they mind control other politicians? Or maybe - just maybe - there is popular support on the Left for those positions?
The 2016 election polls are dated to 2017, 2018, and 2019.
The 2000 election polls range from 2001 all the way through 2017. And they usually aren't about the SCOTUS case, they're asking if the respondents believe that Gore won the election.
The 2004 election polls - where, despite your false suggestion, RFK Jr was not repeatedly sampled to form 40-50% of all Democrats - range from 2005 to the 2015.
There have been books on all these topics written by Democrat political analysts. They're still coming out, especially on the 2000 and 2016 elections.
Again - self-identified Democrats have majority or near-majority rejected the results of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. That's all of the last three times they lost, notice: the majority of your party has not accepted a Republican Presidential victory since 1992, almost 30 years ago. That's a long time for "sour grapes" pushing of false conspiracy theories.
Trump and his party have convinced a large number of Americans that the essential workings of democracy are corrupt, that made-up claims of fraud are true, and that only cheating can thwart their victory at the polls.
The Dems have done nothing like that.
The GOP is seizing partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, and purging out anyone who didn't go along with Trump's attempt to throw out 2020's result.
You're just a tool, eating up what you've been fed. But a braver party would deal with this, not minimize it.
Sarcastro, as I've pointed out, most Democrats have not accepted a Republican President's election victory in 30 years. Thirty years, Sarcastro.
This is entirely "The Dems have done that" - and in fact, did it first, and for more than a generation before Trump started his complaints.
You don't want to admit it, understandable, but running away from the facts does not help your position.
"Opinion polls say otherwise."
Opinion polls say that everybody who says, "Let's go Brandon" wants to overthrow the government? Because that's what you're claiming.
As I said, that's no more valid than claiming that everybody who opposes Trump thinks that Russia hacked voting machines.
Yet you persist.
I was replying to your 10:07 post. Don't change the scope and then call me unresponsive.
I didn't change the scope. You keep trying to make the same incorrect point.
Your 10:07 was objecting to this:
'The whole ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ motif is the reflection of the view [that] two-thirds of the Republican base — driven by Trump’s false claims and the Big Lie that Biden is an illegitimate President,” he continued. “And, it reflects the findings in multiple polls by the American Enterprise Institute, Vanderbilt University, and others, that a majority of Republican voters now say the American way of life is disappearing so fast that … we may have to use force to save it'
Which may or may not be valid (I think it is) but is certainly not calling anything terrorism...yet.
Are you trying to be cagey or something? This is not a hard thread to follow.
"Which may or may not be valid (I think it is) but is certainly not calling anything terrorism...yet."
He was saying, in the part that I quoted, that "Let's Go Brandon" was about insurrection, one of the things you deny people are arguing.
And it's clearly not valid, it's an affirmation of the consequent.
Presumably every nut who wants to depose the president thinks "Fuck Joe Biden" but that doesn't mean that everybody who thinks or says "Fuck Joe Biden" wants to depose the president.
Lots of people who say "Let's Go Brandon" hate Trump too.
No, you don't get to change your thesis.
This isn't terrorism. You came in hot, and were wrong.
Even your backpedal to insurrection was out of context, as the quote I have now posted twice shows.
This is habitual with you - you find some out of context quote and post it here towards some right-wing demonization thesis that falls apart the moment someone googles it.
Read your sources critically and this won't happen so often.
"This isn't terrorism. You came in hot, and were wrong.
Even your backpedal to insurrection was out of context, as the quote I have now posted twice shows."
What backpedal? The original claim that I defended was that people were saying that "Let's go Brandon" was a terrorist threat, one notch below an insurrection.
I provided examples of prominent people on the left arguing that it was a terrorist threat, and that it was about insurrection (one "notch" above the original claim).
And I pointed out that the insurrection claim, which you defend, is a clear logical fallacy.
So I'm not wrong, I am demonstrably correct, and you continue to deny reality even when shown to be wrong.
"Neither of those support your original thesis of 'a terrorist threat.'"
You don't think Asha Rangappa was implying that "Long Live ISIS was a terrorist threat?" Or that she was implying that the "Long Live ISIS should be treated similarly?
Do you think 'long live ISIS' is a terrorist threat? I think it quite clearly is not.
"Do you think 'long live ISIS' is a terrorist threat? I think it quite clearly is not."
By a pilot on an airplane? Whether it is or not, the person making the comparison was using it as an example of a terrorist threat, which supports the claim that people are claiming that the phrase is a terrorist threat.
I don't think that 'it is being used as an example of a terrorist threat' is established at all.
Then why ground the plane?
Why does the TSA make you take off your shoes?
"Why does the TSA make you take off your shoes?"
Huh? Because they claim it protects against terrorism.
So sometimes the TSA does stuff and it's not due to an actual terrorist threat? Seems like your 'why did they ground the plane' may be faulty.
'Long live ISIS' is an awful thing to say, but it not a threat to commit terrorism, and you're being foolish pretending that it is.
"Why does the TSA make you take off your shoes?"
Well, they want to run them through the X-ray, and it's not really safe to do that when the shoes are still on your feet. A fellow named Richard Reid tried to bring down a plane with a bomb in his shoes, so on the general scale of TSA idiocy it's lower down than some of the stuff they do (my favorite: they used to have a display of seized items at Seatac. One of them was the triangular rubber hammer the doc hits your knee with during a physical. I can just see a terrorist using one of those on a pilot ... 'take us to Algiers or I'll make your leg jump again!').
This is certainly a good argument against reading Matt Taibbi. She did not, of course, "equate" them.
Yes, he did. Which is very different than what Rico said.
"She did not, of course, "equate" them."
She created a hypo where she implied that they should be treated the same. I'd say that's equating.
"Yes, he did. Which is very different than what Rico said."
Sure. What Rico said was one notch below what the guy from the Atlantic said.
Dude, your, when posted in context, are off base. You're reading the other side in an exaggerated way, and your own side to minimize what they do because hey, it isn't as bad as the way you wrongly interpreted the Dems.
This is what I'm talking about - the base thinks 2020 was stolen, and the rest are quite willing to enable them.
You guys really think she murdered 256 characters to point out that a fundamentally different comment would generate a different response?
But in any event, your base thinks 2016 was "hacked", and your candidate said that the Trump was not a legitimate president. Don't pretend this is all one side. Both sides are quite willing to believe bullshit.
And you keep making the same fundamental mistake: That opposition to Biden is the same as thinking the election was stolen.
Our base isn't quite sure what hacked means. Your base is defending Jan 06.
This *is* all on one side.
Because Trump is purging the party of anyone who disagrees with his ridiculous position on 2020.
Something you may disagree with, but seem willing to defend.
"Your base is defending Jan 06."
What does "defending Jan 06" mean? I don't know of anybody (outside of nutpicking) who thinks the rioting was OK. The left has done more defending of the BLM riots than the right has the Jan 6 riots.
"Our base isn't quite sure what hacked means."
But your politicians know what it means.
And your candidate knew what "illegitimate" means.
Hillary came out way later and complained. No one listened to her.
That's nothing like what Trump did.
Your weak false equivalences continues. Liberals are dumb all the time, but your party is into a different level of shit now, thanks to Trump.
And you will go along, saying Jan 06 wasn't an insurrection, just some spontaneous tourism, and pointing at minor nonsense on the left to justify yourself all the way to doomsday.
"Hillary came out way later and complained. No one listened to her."
Why don't you just admit that Hillary claimed that the election was illegitimate and criticize her? I have no problem criticizing Trump. But you continue to defend Hillary.
You can call Jan 6th an insurrection if you want, just like you can call the autonomous zone in Seattle an insurrection. The problem is that you continue to downplay the BLM violence all summer and make a big deal about the riot at the Capitol. They're both worthy of criticism.
Holy moly I was hoping for a legal softball like this. You fellas see the razor-thin line between objective/subjective fear when there is no gun involved vs. when there may very well be a gun? Now consider the third guy shot by Rittenhouse: Gaige "well I just saw this soy boy shoot two people and now he's upon me...might as well lower my weapon and take my best chance" Grosskreutz. And who again is practicing self defense? Go!
"well I just saw this soy boy shoot two people and now he's upon me...might as well lower my weapon and take my best chance..."
Get it right. Grosskreutz was behind Rittenhouse, running in the same direction as Rittenhouse, but not chasing Rittenhouse. Then Rittenhouse was on the ground as Grosskreutz ran up to him.
Yes, and in the moment I described...who was thinking self-defense? Could it have been both?
No, because Grosskreutz could have observed that Rittenhouse only fired at people who attacked him.
It's sad that half the country has regressed so much that you even asked that question.
Mr. Michael P, you are saying it is a sign of regression to consider that situation in different ways?
you are saying it is a sign of regression to consider that situation in different ways?
And by "different ways" you mean in ways that are contradictory to the known facts.
" It's sad that half the country has regressed so much that you even asked that question. "
Right-wingers whining about getting stomped by their betters in the culture war are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Open wider, Michael P. Better Americans have plenty more progress that you will swallow (until you are replaced).
"who was thinking self-defense? Could it have been both?"
No. Grosskreutz didn't have a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger, as was made clear in the cross. Grosskreutz was chasing him, for crying out loud.
A nice illustration of the difference between the real world that police must live in and the cloistered world their cocktail-party-circuit critics inhabit.
I would use a deft term to note that you are a 'person who provides slobbering succor to cops, especially abusive police officers,' F.D. Wolf, but Prof. Volokh has used his censorship entitlement to declare that criticizing clingers with that precise term is forbidden at this White, male, right-wing version of a "free speech" blog.
You are still a lousy c_p s_ccor, though, regardless of Prof. Volokh's shabby efforts to shield conservatives from deft puns.
(If you were to acknowledge error and apologize, Prof. Volokh, you would bring a bit of freedom to your blog, avoid continuing hypocrisy, and become a better person. Imagine that, professor . . . in at least one context, you could become one of the "betters" of our society!)
Did you consider the alternative of just not being an ass?
"If you were to acknowledge error and apologize, Prof. Volokh..."
Geez. Kirkland's masturbating.
While "[t[he City correctly notes that mimicking the firing of a gun has been considered threatening in other contexts and jurisdictions", the City is emphatically wrong in implying that the court should perpetuate that mistake. Mimicking the firing of a gun (especially the entirely non-lethal finger-gun) is not actually threatening in any circumstances. No reasonable person could conclude so.
As you say, no reasonable person could think a finger-gun is an actual threat.
"It wasn't so scarry until he pointed his index fanger at me with his thumb sticking up like it was a hammer on a Glock. When I saw that, it went all over me like a strick of lightening, like it was a threat to KILL!"
Eugene Volokh's arguments are specious at best and harmful to society at worst.
Eugene Volokh's articles and arguments, if you strip them to its core, is basically trying to destroy all types of regulations and law that would make the Internet a bit safer and prevent crimes like cyberstalking, cyberharassment from destroying victims' lives while preserving Free Speech. It's a balancing act. Free Speech is important, but so is individual privacy and protection from malicious behavior. Volokh completely (and purposefully) ignores the balancing part.
Eugene Volokh's view is, apparently, that most online harms like doxing, harassment, stalking are perfectly legal (and should be perfectly legal!) simply because they involve "speech." He uses the First Amendment has a liability shield to absolve almost the entire spectrum of human conduct (including the vile, abhorrent, and malicious) from not just criminal liability, but also civil liability. He leaves victims of these crimes with no laws or legal standing to defend themselves from purposely malicious individuals who aim to take advantage of these legal loopholes to destroy lives, and he probably makes a good amount of money from taking back-end bribes from Big Tech (several of his "papers" were funded by Google, but I bet most people didn't pick up on that).
If you notice, several of his papers support "Free Speech" and lack of "search engine liability" are funded by Google. The guy is taking money from Big Tech to fight against the laws that would hold Big Tech accountable for their intentionally condoning harmful behavior online. Eugene Volokh's analysis is inaccurate, harmful to society, and he treats victims of online crimes as dispensable collateral damage.
I mean, this person is obviously a loon, but I just wanted to single out the language that censors like to use: that someone is "hiding behind" the first amendment (or in this case, that he's using it as a "shield.") But that's the whole point of the first amendment!: to shield people from liability for their speech. So saying that someone is "hiding behind it" is not a pejorative accusation.
Of course, not all speech is protected. But one has to explain how a particular type of speech is unprotected, not just attack the notion of speech being protected.
And of course talking about "victims of these crimes" is begging the question. If the speech in question is protected, then those things aren't crimes.